State Of Karnataka vs Ashwatha & Ors.

M G Uma, J

The State has preferred this appeal seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in Crime No.382/2021 of Channarayapatna Police Station, in favour of the accused - respondent No.1 by the Trial Court.

Heard Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are served and remained unrepresented. Perused the materials on record.

In view of the contentions urged by the learned High Court Government Pleader and on going through the materials placed on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the State has made out any grounds for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of accused - respondent No.1 and to allow the appeal?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

REASONS

From the materials on record, it is found that Crime No.382/2021 of Channarayapatana Town police station came to be registered against respondent No.1 - accused on the basis of the first information lodged by respondent No.2 - informant for the offences punishable under Section 341, 504, 323, 307 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015.

Respondent No.1 being the accused has approached the Trial Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail with the apprehension of being arrested in Crime No.382/2021. The Trial Court considered the said application on merits. The order was passed allowing Crl.Misc.No.1429/2021 and granting anticipatory bail, subject to conditions.

The State has preferred this appeal seeking cancellation of bail. The grounds made out in the memorandum of appeal to seek cancellation of bail is that the Trial Court has not taken into consideration the seriousness of the offences alleged. It has ignored the fact that the investigation was still in progress. It has also ignored the prohibition under Special Enactment for granting anticipatory bail and therefore, the bail granted is to be cancelled.

On perusal of the impugned order, the Court has considered the specific contention taken by the prosecution and formed an opinion that, no prima facie case is made out to apply Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Amendment Act and therefore, there is no bar for granting of anticipatory bail. It has also formed an opinion that the accused - respondent No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation and therefore, proceeded to allow the petition.

It is pertinent to note that the order granting anticipatory bail was passed on 06.12.2021. The present appeal came to be filed on 23.08.2022. Till date, the appeal is not prosecuted. It is not the contention of learned High Court Government Pleader that, respondent No.1 has violated any of the conditions that are imposed by the Trial Court while granting anticipatory bail. Admittedly, investigation is completed and the stage at which the matter is pending is also not known. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the appeal.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.